How Industry Funding Shapes the Perception of Red Meat and Heart Health

A review recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found a concerning trend: red meat appeared healthier in studies sponsored by the meat industry.

This pattern is not unexpected for those familiar with nutrition research, which often faces conflicts of interest due to insufficient federal funding. It underscores how industry-linked studies can shape public understanding—and sometimes misinterpretation—of the health impacts of dietary choices.

Similar examples have emerged in the past, such as sugar industry-funded research downplaying the link between sugar consumption and diseases like obesity and heart disease. Likewise, alcohol industry-sponsored studies have suggested that moderate drinking might be part of a healthy diet.

Miguel López Moreno, a researcher at Francisco de Vitoria University in Spain who led the new analysis, explained via email that he sought to determine if a similar bias existed in research on unprocessed red meat. While processed meats such as bacon and sausages have been consistently linked to heart disease risk, evidence on unprocessed red meats like steaks and pork chops has been “much more mixed.”

This topic is particularly relevant as influential figures—including the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and popular podcasters Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman—have spoken positively about meat-heavy diets and downplayed the health risks of saturated fats, raising concerns among public health experts.

It has long been established that saturated fat intake, abundant in red meat, is associated with cardiovascular disease. So, what does this new finding tell us about how financial interests might influence public perceptions of what is healthy?

Here is an overview of expert insights on the matter.

Key Findings from the New Study

Moreno and colleagues from various Spanish research institutions analyzed 44 clinical trials published between 1980 and 2023. These studies examined how consumption of unprocessed red meat affected participants' risk factors for cardiovascular disease, measuring indicators such as cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and triglycerides.

The trials involved adults who consumed either unprocessed red meat or comparison diets over periods ranging from weeks to months. Some studies included healthy adults, while others focused on individuals with cardiovascular risk factors like high cholesterol or obesity.

Out of the 44 studies, 29 received funding from meat industry organizations such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Board. The remaining 15 were supported by government grants, academic institutions, or nonprofit foundations without industry ties.

The researchers found that industry-funded trials were nearly four times more likely to report favorable or neutral cardiovascular outcomes from consuming unprocessed red meat compared to independently funded studies. All independently funded studies showed either neutral or adverse cardiovascular effects, while industry-backed studies reported favorable or neutral results.

The authors of this review declared no conflicts of interest or affiliations with the food industry.

A Confusing Picture for Consumers

Deirdre Tobias, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted that when multiple trials investigate the same topic but yield conflicting results, it becomes challenging for the public to discern what to trust. This can undermine confidence in nutrition science.

Tobias, writing in an editorial accompanying the new study, explained that while individual nutrition studies can effectively compare specific foods, determining whether a food or food group is overall beneficial or harmful requires analyzing a broad range of studies comparing it to diverse diets and foods.

The review revealed that industry-funded studies often compared unprocessed red meat with other animal proteins like chicken or fish, or with carbohydrates such as bread, pasta, or rice, rather than with the full spectrum of foods people might eat—including heart-healthy options like whole grains or plant-based protein sources such as tofu, nuts, and legumes.

In contrast, independently funded studies examined red meat against a comprehensive range of diets, including other meats, whole grains, and cardiovascular-friendly plant foods like soy products, nuts, and legumes. This broader approach provides a clearer picture of red meat’s true health risks or benefits.

Walter C. Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health, said it cannot be proven that industry-funded scientists intentionally excluded certain comparisons to cast red meat in a favorable light, but the pattern is concerning.

A spokesperson for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association stated via email that cattle producers support rigorous scientific research and that both animal and plant protein sources can be part of a heart-healthy diet.

Nutrition experts agree that both protein sources can fit into a healthy diet. While more extensive and longer-term studies comparing high-quality plant proteins with unprocessed red meat are needed, current evidence suggests plant proteins are better for heart health than animal proteins rich in saturated fats.

Implications for Future Nutrition Research

John Ioannidis, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health at Stanford University, noted that when any food industry group—even those unrelated to meat such as soy or nut industries—funds research, the goal often includes promoting and selling their product.

This concern is heightened by proposed cuts to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, which could increase reliance on industry-funded research.

Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, warned that such budget reductions do not bode well for the credibility of nutrition science.

Nestle emphasized that while industry-funded nutrition research may help market their products, it does not advance scientific understanding.

During a recent webinar, Jay Bhattacharya, the NIH’s new director, indicated that nutrition will be a focus under his leadership, though details about funding priorities were not disclosed.

Experts remain skeptical. Nutrition research in the U.S. has long been underfunded; for example, less than 5 percent of the NIH budget was allocated to nutrition research in 2023, a “minuscule” amount, according to Tobias.

Tobias said the red meat study serves as a prime example of why increased investment in nutrition research is essential to avoid overreliance on industry-driven agendas with limited assurances that public health interests will be prioritized.